Jump to content

Talk:Women in Pakistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MelissaBaljeet, Caticoatl. Peer reviewers: MelissaBaljeet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pov regarding Islam

[edit]

“Pakistan has a dual system of civil and sharia law. The Constitution of Pakistan recognizes equality between men and women (Art. 25(2) states "There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex") Pakistan has a dual system of civil and sharia law. The Constitution of Pakistan recognizes equality between men and women (Art. 25(2) states "There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex") BUT also recognizes as valid Sharia law (Chapter 3A. – Federal Shariat Court).”

This implies a bias in favour of the view Islam advocates gender discrimination

Picture representing women of Pakistan

[edit]
The Very first picture representing women of Pakistan is misleading. Womens shown in article belong to the Thar Desert who are undernourished but it is very small Hindu population. Women of Pakistan are beautiful and healthy. Someone should change the picture which truly represents the folk Aleeza512 09:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

[edit]

I believe that this article needs some severe fixing. There are lots of untrue things, and it is a blatant attempt at showing Pakistan in the best light possible. Compared with other "Women in ____" this article overly exagurates the good aspects into making the reader believe almost the exact opposite of the truth.

An unbiased person knowledgable of the true status of women in Pakistan should rewrite this article entirely, scrapping almost everything currently in this article.

Amusing as always

[edit]

Removed my own comments for lack of any sources.--Jareer 11:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Jareer (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV (article title)

[edit]

I think the title of the article is a little POV. Do we have an article titled "Status of men in Pakistan"? Then why have status of women in Pakistan? I think a more NPOV title should be chosen. Almost anything else would be better. "Feminism in Pakistan"? "Women in Pakistan"? AucamanTalk 11:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the title is POV . . . if anything, I almost thing it's bending over backwards not to be. If we had a title like "opportunities for women in Pakistan" or "oppression of women in Pakistan" then that would be POV, in the sense that it tries to portray the status of women in either a positive or a negative light.
Regarding the word "status", it is presumably meant to mean "position relative to others" (which is NPOV), rather than the alternate definition of "high esteem", which would of course be POV. (See [1].)
As for why there's an article "women in Pakistan", but not "men in Pakistan":
Really, the article is about women as compared to men (i.e., do they have equal rights or not?) The convention when discussing whether or not one group is disadvantaged in a society relative to another group is to refer to the allegedly disadvantaged group. E.g., An article "gay rights in America" would talk about gay rights as compared to straight rights, but it would be rather odd to call it "straight rights in America", and start off with "straights couples have the right to marry, unlike gays." Anyone interested in the topic would search for "gays in America", and likewise someone interested in women (as compared to men) in Pakistan would search for "women in Pakistan". --Tim314 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a better title would be Women in Pakistan. utcursch | talk 12:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV (article content)

[edit]

As for the content of the article itself, it seems highly POV. It focuses on positive aspects almost exclusively, and completely fails to mention the widely reported occurences of honor killings and other human rights abuses directed against women. (E.g., see [2]). Instead, the article only contains vague claims like "Pakistani women continue to struggle for advancement", and "much more remains to be done." Even if every sentence in the article is factually accurate (which I can't personally attest), it's POV by virtue of what it leaves out.

Also, sentences like "The Pakistani women of today enjoy a better status than most Islamic and Middle Eastern women" are subjective, and ought to either be attributed to a specific person or omitted. ("Pakistani women have always played a part in its society," should also be scrapped, as it's meaninglessly vague.) Of course, criticisms of the treatment of women in Pakistan (once they're added) should likewise be attributed to their source. --Tim314 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a POV tag to the page. To reiterate, whether or not the article is factually accurate, it ought to address the positive and negative things that have been said about the lives of women in Pakistan in order to be NPOV. I'd edit it myself, but I don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject. (For what it's worth, the whole reason I looked up this page was in response to a news article about honor killings, hoping to find out how widespread the problem is and whether it happens as much in cities as in rural areas. But the article acts like these things don't exist.) Tim314 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that " The Pakistani women of today enjoy a better status than most Islamic and Middle Eastern women" is indeed a mere assertion. The author seems to have been influenced by anti-Islamic propaganda about the alleged "plight of Muslim women". In fact, in almost any Islamic country women have the rights mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.241.229 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write and expansion

[edit]

I've re-written and expanded the article. The diff is here. utcursch | talk 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

I don't doubt that the statement is correct, but it's one of those statements that does require a reference for inclusion. A reference to similar issues in another country unfortunately doesn't work. While I agree with that bit, "simple" residency in the area is not good enough by Wiki standards. It's the same case that I cannot got to the wiki for my home region and add in items (especially comments about conservative religious members) without a proper refence. I doubt it will be hard to find a reference for it, though. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in jail

[edit]

I found the article Damn the women in distress, damn our callous lady MNAs (archive) to be of possible interesert to those who maintain this article. __meco (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Pending changes

[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Upgraded

[edit]

I upgraded it with peaces on dress code, acid throwing, bride burnig, etc, a map and a photo.Wipsenade (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added Head and eyebrow shaving attacks, sources on violence, sources on rape, sources on honner killing and a peace on adutery.Wipsenade (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women are relatively safe are you srue then?

[edit]

New article on Boston.Com says that Paksitan is the third most dangerous country for women. It is contradicting to what tihs article staytes then 71.106.222.108 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from WikiSDG, 10 September 2011

[edit]

"democratically" is spelled wrong in this sentence: Zia-ul-Haq's military régime Main article: Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization General Zia ul-Haq, then Army Chief of Staff, overthrew the denocratically elected Zulfikar Ali Bhutto government in a military coup on 5 July 1977. WikiSDG (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Elockid (Talk) 17:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

FYI, I removed {{Women in society}} as the thrust of the navbox is sociological where this article appears to be more geographically / anthopologically oriented. ClaretAsh 11:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 May 2013

[edit]

Please correct link for this reference: "Women in Pakistan: Country Briefing Paper. Asian Development Bank. 2000." The correct link is: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2000/women_pakistan.pdf Aiko1031 (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done BryanG (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 30 May 2013

[edit]

Please change "after she became convert to Christianity" to "after she converted to Christianity". 2001:18E8:2:1020:C581:3677:5FFC:1271 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --SMS Talk 20:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massive vandalism

[edit]

Two users, Fareed30 and Mar4d, continue to remove sourced content in line with a nationalist bias, in which any negative reference to Afghanistan is systematically deleted, along with all sources no matter how well they satisfy WP:RS. If Fareed30 and Mar4d feel that there is a problem with the sourced they keep deleting, then the place to discuss it is here, and before deleting. Removing sourced content because it may be critical of a certain country is in breach of WP:NPOV, not to mention that it is a clear case of vandalism to keep deleting sourced content in that way.Jeppiz (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the following statements: (1) "Trafficking of women is on the rise in Pakistan." (2) "Foreign women from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar are brought to Pakistan and sold." Such allegations require verifiable sources, I didn't see that so I removed this allegation but rewrote the subsection in a better and neutral way, sourcing it with very reliable sources.--Fareed30 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of those statements were sourced by reliable sources. You removed them, and you also inserted claims with no sources at all. All you are doing here is pushing a nationalist POV, vandalizing articles in the process. And yes, repeatedly removing sourced content most definitely is vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Fareed30 Both the statements were sourced, they only needed to be properly attributed, like "According to he ADB report (2000) on Pakistani women .....". --SMS Talk 13:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they were correctly sourced then I wouldn't have modified or removed the statements. The following is what I'm having a problem with:
  • (A) Acid throwing attacks are most common in Afghanistan. -- Ermachild Chavis, Melody, Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan (St Martin's Press, 2003), ISBN 978-0-312-30689-2.
  • (B) Foreign women from Afghanistan are brought to Pakistan and sold.
In A, the book is missing a page number, a link, or a quote, and I can't find it on googles books, and it contradicts what health experts claim: "Acid attack violence occurs in many countries but is particularly prevalent in: Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Cambodia." pg. 5 [3] (The Center for Global Initiatives at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill presents the Carolina Papers on International Health). This is why I removed Afghanistan from the list, and I've said that I'm an expert on this issue.
In B, one is a dead link and the other is a 2000 report, but we are in 2013 and if there is a market in Pakistan today where Afghan or other foreign women are sold, I like to know where that is so I can leave a tip for the Homeland Security Investigations.--Fareed30 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has seen far too many reverts today. Per the compromise agreed here, I have restored to the version which is preferred by Jeppiz and also keeps intact the formatting edits made by Fareed30. Before making any further reverts, everyone should discuss on this talk page what is sourced and what isn't as far as content is concerned, before removing anything. Let's give the reverts a break. Mar4d (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mar4d and SMS. I won't edit the article more today, and I am not an expert on this issue. I only became involved as I saw that Fareed30 was involved in heavy content removal. Unfortunately, that is a behavior that Fareed30 seems to be repeating at other articles as well. For my part, I leave this article. Thanks to Mar4d and SMS for the constructive approach.Jeppiz (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Women in Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Women's rights in Pakistan

[edit]

I think the article Women's rights in Pakistan should be merged here. Much of what is in that article is repeated here. What would be the opinions of other editors? 2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:50C:7540 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was done.5.12.116.29 (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dated content - year 2000 source used to describe current situation in year 2016

[edit]

About ten years ago there were complaints on this talk page that the article provided an overly positive portrayal of the situation. These complaints seem to have been adequately addressed, which is good.

However, large parts of the content now in the article is based on sources that are increasingly dated. As it is generally accepted that the situation of women in Pakistan is on average subject to gradual improvement, this currently seems to cause a WP:POV problem in the opposite direction.

I am thinking in particular of the most-cited source, Mariam S. Pal (2000). Women in Pakistan: Country Briefing Paper (PDF). Asian Development Bank. ISBN 971-561-297-0, a dead link. This dates from seventeen years ago. It is used throughout the article, cited fifteen times in all, including in support of the opening paragraph of the lede which gives a very strong summary of the current situation as a whole and thus influences the reader right from the beginning. By comparison, the second-most cited source is cited seven times in all, is also a dead link, and is without date or ISBN or other information, so may be just as old or even older.

Writing about a broad and contentious social, political and legal topic with a source that is seventeen years old -- and whose research will have been even older -- is problematic. An encyclopedist writing about gender equality in the United Kingdom in the year 2000, for example, would not have been using secondary sources published in the year 1973 to describe the current situation in the country.

Looking briefly over the other references, there are many from within the last few years, but also a large number from 2006 and 2007 -- I assume much good work was done around that time improving the article with then-current sources, but that is ten years ago. The sources from 1997 and 1998 that I spotted are of much less concern, as they support past-tense statements about events under historical regimes.

I think changes in the lede and elsewhere to address this unintentional bias are necessary, and I would like people's thoughts. Of course, improving the article with more recent sources that give a broad consideration of the topic is also necessary. I have just now updated one of the fifteen uses of the Mariam S. Pal source, as it was being used to support strong statements made in the present tense that were also contradicted by more modern sources. MPS1992 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some of the content looks seriously outdated. Also, much of the article (certainly the lead) seems to belong to an article with a different scope, Women's Rights in Pakistan. There's more to women's lives than being oppressed, even in Pakistan. Eperoton (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Women in Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC) WOMEN RIGHTS people who donot give women their rights r very mean!! VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY mean!!shame on those donkeys!!VERY BAD!!i feel like slapping them and torturing them till they die! they r heartless peopl!i cant even call them "people". the truth is that they are DONKEYS!! even donkeys rnt that mean!that rude!that stupid! they passed all the limits! they a r khotas! shame on them! sahame upon their donkey faces!shame uopn their donkey hands and leg! SHAME UPON THEIR DREADFUL BODY! THEIR DREADFUL SOULS! SHAME ON THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES!SHAME!SHAME!SHAME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.188.233 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Women in Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Women in Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage to Quran section

[edit]

I've tagged this section, as it's not clear what the process involves, and the citation provided offers little further explanation. I found another discussion from 2007 here. However, I'm not sure of its reliability as a source, since it's a blog posting. Any thoughts? jxm (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request of Help

[edit]

I was looking for some small help. I created an article User:Bookku/Me Too movement (Pakistan) in user namespace. Article is almost ready but before taking to main namespace Looking for help in English language Spell-check, punctuation, grammar check and corrections. Using better alternative words etc. Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content deletion not understood

[edit]

I could not understand justification of following content deletion properly. For Record Bookku (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"..According to joint research study conducted by scholars of Armed forces Institute of Pathology Rawalpindi and Rehman Medical Institute Peshawar, rate of cousin marriages are very high in Pakistan since centuries together.[1] Pakistan lacks national level programme for research and dignosis of Inherited Metabolic Disorders caused by consanguineous marriages.[1] Especially health care system of Pakistan generally lacks enough multi disciplinary technical expertise and too resource constrained to diagnose and address health issues arising out of Inherited Metabolic Disorders contributed by high prevalence of cousin marriages .[1] As per conclusions of Ayesha Hafeez, A. Ijaz, N. Chaudhry, et al, prevalence of 6% Inherited Metabolic Disorders which includes a large prevalence of Hyperglycinemia, nonketotic is quite considerable and seizures and coma being common complaints.[1]."

  1. ^ a b c d Hafeez, Ayesha; Ijaz, Aamir; Chaudhry, Nayyar; Ali, Oshaque (January 2020). "Diagnosis of inherited metabolic disorders by selective metabolite testing: three years experience at a tertiary care center in Rawalpindi". Journal of Pakistan Medical Association. 70 (1): 53–57. doi:10.5455/JPMA.301908. PMID 31954023.

Requesting opinion on a page move request.

[edit]

Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies of Pakistani Women

[edit]

I suppose article deserves a separate descriptive section about Autobiographies of Pakistani Women. Any ways here is a brief info article on dawn .com

Bookku (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

en:Draft:Urdu feminist literature

[edit]

Starting new article en:Draft:Urdu feminist literature. Please add relevant information with references.

Bookku (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia D. Ritchie

[edit]

Greetings,

Wikipedia has an article Cynthia D. Ritchie, you are requested to update, expand, copy edit the article. Also you can help the same by adding the article to your watch list.

Bookku (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White washing ?

[edit]

I suppose these edits by ip 92.40.183.194 are merely an attempt of whitewashing and soft censoring inconvenient sourced. This is very common practice about South Asian articles.

Right now I am busy with other tasks so as of now I am leaving at that may be some other user can review those changes.

Bookku (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know your agenda but you used one judge being harassed as all female judges being mistreated.

You compared pakistan with india with women riding bikes which depends on the city and area you just generalized the whole of pakistan and said its unsafe and taboo.

Benazir Bhutto has more of a right to be the face of pakistani women as she was the first muslim women to be a head of state of any other muslim nation rather than some random protesters.

You mixed the custom of vani with child marriage and it was you from checking the source history.

Pakistan doesn't allow marital rape and it can be taken to court so I removed it

https://www.samaa.tv/lifeandstyle/2020/01/raping-your-wife-isnt-allowed-in-pakistan-law/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.183.38 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge Women related laws in Pakistan into Women in Pakistan on the grounds that Women in Pakistan it too long to merge into and Women related laws in Pakistan should be linked to it, perhaps in WP:SUMMARY form. Klbrain (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently stumbled upon an article titled Women related laws in Pakistan that I believe should be merged into this article. The article in question is not too large and doesn't cover anything that couldn't be under the umbrella of this article. It seems better to put its contents within this article and from a practical perspective, it's unlikely that the majority of Wikipedia readers will stumble across that article separately, and the topic will get better coverage under this page as opposed to the questionably-formatted state it is in now. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:
  • Net byte size of Women in Pakistan article is already 143,542 bytes i.e. 143.5 Kb Even by Characters count 67,217 so around 67 kb.
  • If one is bent upon to add all Pakistan women related stub in this article this article size will easily surpass over 3000 Kb
  • Reliable source availability for the topic of Women related laws in Pakistan is more than enough to have independent article.
  • As such Women related laws in Pakistan is not likely to count as stub either, and If Wikipedia does not have a policy to merge all stubs and small articles together why forcefully combine a topic which can have independent sustenance is not clear enough from merger proposal.
  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
    • Demand women's participation in decision-making at all levels
    • Equality of women and men under the law; protection of women and girls through the rule of law
    • Recognition of the fact that distinct experiences and burdens of women and girls come from systemic discrimination
    • Ensure that women's experiences, needs and perspectives are incorporated into the ... social decisions.
Bookku (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per @Tagishsimon and Suonii180:. There should be a section in this main article regarding women-related laws in Pakistain to include (a) {{main|Women related laws in Pakistan}} at the top of the section, followed by a brief (1 paragraph) synopsis on the topic. Other large topics could be split off in the same way. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addendum: I note that Women in Pakistan#Legislation for protection of women already links this page with a {{main|Women related laws in Pakistan}} template. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting inputs

[edit]

Greetings,

Hi, I'm User:Bookku a discussion about the sourced content is underway @ Talk:Minar-e-Pakistan#En masse public molestation and sexual violence against women. Your inputs are requested and awaited. Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Safabsr (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CooperR.Anthony (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women_in_Pakistan&oldid=1210989067"